Laïcité/secularism is the future of religions. Are you pro or con?

Cpat92

It's all or nothing

Lauderhill, Florida

#16

May 19, 2019 @ 04:14:58

@chaski Said

I sort of get the "atheist Christian" thing. It is obviously completely inaccurate, but I get it.

The "agnostic atheist" is just stupid.

Agreed.

0

Leon

San Diego, California

#17

May 19, 2019 @ 04:37:45

@chaski Said

Sorry.... long post to follow...

Interesting (at least to me) the violence perpetrated by so called terrorist groups is essentially (from a legal/ law enforcement perspective) perpetrated by organized violent crime groups.

The violence perpetrated by governments is organized legal violent groups.

(Side note: Some will argue against this, but terrorism is at its core a crime. Yes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. None the less, either way, terrorist acts are foremost crimes against the state... murder, kidnapping, destruction of public or private property, etc... crimes. They may or may not be historically justified... or justified by history... but remain crimes against the state. I am happy to expand and further explain that to anyone who might be confused or uncertain.)

Back to the organized violent (crime) groups... there are (obviously) a variety with a variety of both claimed purposes and actual goals...

The Zionists wanted a Jewish homeland.

The PLA wants its land back.

The IRA wanted a "free" Ireland.

The Colonists (present day USA) wanted freedom from the King.

Islamic Terrorists want freedom from the repression of the West... aka the USA and its allies.

The Mafia wants freedom from the Law.

They all want to buck the system and all violate the law to do this...

They all want a few things:
> Money
> Power
> Resources
> Influence
> Freedom... or some level of freedom

etc.... etc... etc...

The difference between organized violent (crime) groups is their perspective... and (sometimes) legal standing...

> The Mafia wants money to gain power to gain more money...

> The Zionists wanted money to gain the ability to gain power to obtain their homeland.

> Muslim terrorist want money to gain the ability to gain power to throw off the shackles of Satan (aka the USA and its allies)

> Countries like the USA, USSR/Russian Federation, GB/UK, etc... want money to gain the ability to gain power to gain control over the world's resources that provide money to gain more power....

We are far beyond Maslow's hierarchy of needs here folks...

"We" are all (nearly all) being used by the few who want...
> To gain Money
> To gain Power
> To gain more money Money
> To gain Resources
> To gain Power
> To gain more Money
> etc.

"You" or "we" can start reckoning the process wherever we want, but ultimately the goals are the same....

...money... resources...violence...power...money...

or

... violence... money... violence... money... power... violence...resources... power... etc

The motivations are, ultimately, power and money.

The claimed motivation is freedom... sometime supported by religion...

The tactics and strategy shift in order, but focus on: money, resources, power, violence...

And propaganda to make it all tase good.

It’s always been based on territory and revenge between the Jews and Muslims, ever since the dawn of recorded history. Religion has been used as an excuse for it - heck, Islam was partially built on it - read the Koran itself. The violence didn’t begin after the Koran. It was already a fact of life.

0

Edited: May 19, 2019 @ 04:39

Leon

San Diego, California

#18

May 19, 2019 @ 05:10:21

There is a correlation between crime and blacks in the US. Does this mean that the color of your skin makes it more likely that you will commit a crime? Of course not. There are other factors that contribute to why such a correlation exists, namely poverty.

Same goes with the correlation between religion and the history of wars. Other factors need to be looked at and ruled out before one can correctly conclude that one directly causes the other, which I fear the OP hasn’t.

This is the case with any statistical study. They include variables and control groups to help eliminate other possible causes of correlations.

A correlation also exists between poorer countries and the level of religion in countries. The so one can just as easily instead correlate poverty as the cause of the tendency for war. This is especially the case in the last 75 years, where wars between two or more countries has declined dramatically and civil wars within individual countries have risen dramatically. Most of these countries in the latter case are third world countries.

Yes, prior that, war also did exist between wealthier countries, but is the decline since then due to a loss of religion or just due to the fact that we didn’t have the threat of nuclear weapons before then? After 1945, wealthier countries were able to get a hold of such weapons of mass destruction pretty quickly after that and enter a great stalemate as a result, also known as the Cold War. Guess when we saw a dramatic decrease in European war?

Yes, the two big superpowers of this era did get themselves involved in proxy wars. But, then again, one of of the two was atheistic. But I guess the OP wants to pretend that fact isn’t important, because it flies in the fact of his little theory.

There are studies that actually have dug into the causes of war, and are not based on quickly pasted similarities. Religion accounted for only 10% of these causes (and even these, such as the Jewish/Islamic conflict, I would argue that religion was only used for face value). The majority of the causes were economic gain, territorial gain, nationalism, revenge, defensive war, revolutionary war, and civil strife.

Religion has just been used as a tool to advance real priorities.

1

Edited: May 19, 2019 @ 05:26

gakINGKONG

, Florida

#19

May 19, 2019 @ 05:38:53

@GreatestIam2 Said

This relates to the O.P. how?

Can you not judge if the secular law under discussion is a good move to reduce the causes of religious strife and violence?

Regards
DL

History isn’t helping that. The best you can hope for is The United States Navy fighting back Muhammadists on the shores of Tripoli.

Go Navy!— but no that’s not a direct answer for your problems.

0

GreatestIam2

Ottawa, Canada

#20

May 19, 2019 @ 14:43:26

@Leon Said

I’m not denying there is a correlation. I’m just not ready to accept your theory as to the cause.

Religions are hate generating machines and hate and was or violence are man's greatest tools to appease our love of drama.

This is an indirect consequence of joining a team or group. You are to hate all those not of your ilk.

History is clear on this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxoxPapPxXk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIQynsWpBpQ

Regards
DL

0

GreatestIam2

Ottawa, Canada

#21

May 19, 2019 @ 15:05:00

@Leon Said

Same goes with the correlation between religion and the history of wars. Other factors need to be looked at and ruled out before one can correctly conclude that one directly causes the other, which I fear the OP hasn’t.

Factors like the propensity of Christians to use inquisitions and Muslims to use jihad to grow their religions instead of good moral tents should tell us all we need to know.

Laïcité/secularism is a part of curbing those propensities towards violence against other tribes/religions.

Regards
DL

0

Leon

San Diego, California

#22

May 19, 2019 @ 15:30:55

@GreatestIam2 Said

Factors like the propensity of Christians to use inquisitions and Muslims to use jihad to grow their religions instead of good moral tents should tell us all we need to know.

Laïcité/secularism is a part of curbing those propensities towards violence against other tribes/religions.

Regards
DL

Which would only be relevant to your argument if exclusive to religion.

Apparently it isn’t. In fact, it seems to be the opposite. 78 million people were murdered under Mao’s China, 23 million under Joseph Stalin, and 17 million under Adolf Hitler, each far more than all other dictators combined.

0

Edited: May 19, 2019 @ 15:35

chaski

Stalker

Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,

#23

May 19, 2019 @ 16:31:04

@Leon Said

78 million people were murdered under Mao’s China, 23 million under Joseph Stalin, and 17 million under Adolf Hitler, each far more than all other dictators combined.

1. The use of the word "murder" is not accurate for Mao's China. Yes, the number appears to be accurate in terms of deaths. Yes the policies of Communist China lead to what amounts to a famine that caused the starvation deaths. However, "murder" was not the intent.

Note #1: Mao publicly stated on a number of occasions that he was not an atheist and believed in "god". He just didn't believe in the god of the Bible. In addition, these deaths were unrelated to war.

2. The use of the word "murder" while closer to being accurate in the case of Stalin's 23 million is also not accurate. Stalin did have many people murdered, but most of the 23 million were not really murder.

Note #2: Stalin was raised as a Christian and even went to seminary school. While allegedly an "atheist" his life was heavily impacted (even guided) by Christianity. Again, these deaths were unrelated to war (the number from WW2 being not included).

3. The actions of Hitler (& Nazi Germany) are the only of these three that can without dispute be described as murder.

Note #3: Hitler was also raised as a Christian, and was heavily influenced by Christianity... thus his hate of Jews.

4. While the actions of the USA, a Christian country, have resulted in far fewer deaths, they have typically been, usually, directly attributable to war.

Note #4: A Christian President or the USA is responsible for the two greatest (largest in number) acts resulting in deaths in the history of the world... war... though some would (wrongfully) prefer the word murder.

5. If I am not mistaken, King Leopold, Belgium, a Christian is ranked in the top three or four leaders of the world who were responsible for huge number of deaths... again, murder is probably not the correct word.

6. Pol Pot is also frequently listed in the top number and as an atheist... and yet again, he was raised a Christian/Buddhist.

So what is the point of bringing up the fact that some many of these murderous atheists were brought up Christian and the other leaders responsible for huge numbers of deaths were Christians?

> If we have the argument nature vs nurture it seems clear that on the nurture side Christianity is not innocent just because a leader decides in adulthood that he is an atheist. If we go with nature then being an atheist (or christian) has nothing to do with "it".

Final thought... for the moment... the OT, the Torah and the Quran each promote killing and war... I haven't Mao's Red Book lately, nor Marx's communist manifesto, but if memory serves they do justify violence to over throw the the corrupt ruling class... as does the USA's declaration of Independence...

We are a violent species that seemingly like to justify violence and war... and then use our philosophies and religions to declare those acts as somehow just.

1

Edited: May 19, 2019 @ 16:40

chaski

Stalker

Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,

#24

May 19, 2019 @ 16:58:42

@chaski Said

1. The use of the word "murder" is not accurate for Mao's China. Yes, the number appears to be accurate in terms of deaths. Yes the policies of Communist China lead to what amounts to a famine that caused the starvation deaths. However, "murder" was not the intent.

Note #1: Mao publicly stated on a number of occasions that he was not an atheist and believed in "god". He just didn't believe in the god of the Bible. In addition, these deaths were unrelated to war.

2. The use of the word "murder" while closer to being accurate in the case of Stalin's 23 million is also not accurate. Stalin did have many people murdered, but most of the 23 million were not really murder.

Note #2: Stalin was raised as a Christian and even went to seminary school. While allegedly an "atheist" his life was heavily impacted (even guided) by Christianity. Again, these deaths were unrelated to war (the number from WW2 being not included).

3. The actions of Hitler (& Nazi Germany) are the only of these three that can without dispute be described as murder.

Note #3: Hitler was also raised as a Christian, and was heavily influenced by Christianity... thus his hate of Jews.

4. While the actions of the USA, a Christian country, have resulted in far fewer deaths, they have typically been, usually, directly attributable to war.

Note #4: A Christian President or the USA is responsible for the two greatest (largest in number) acts resulting in deaths in the history of the world... war... though some would (wrongfully) prefer the word murder.

5. If I am not mistaken, King Leopold, Belgium, a Christian is ranked in the top three or four leaders of the world who were responsible for huge number of deaths... again, murder is probably not the correct word.

6. Pol Pot is also frequently listed in the top number and as an atheist... and yet again, he was raised a Christian/Buddhist.

So what is the point of bringing up the fact that some many of these murderous atheists were brought up Christian and the other leaders responsible for huge numbers of deaths were Christians?

> If we have the argument nature vs nurture it seems clear that on the nurture side Christianity is not innocent just because a leader decides in adulthood that he is an atheist. If we go with nature then being an atheist (or christian) has nothing to do with "it".

Final thought... for the moment... the OT, the Torah and the Quran each promote killing and war... I haven't Mao's Red Book lately, nor Marx's communist manifesto, but if memory serves they do justify violence to over throw the the corrupt ruling class... as does the USA's declaration of Independence...

We are a violent species that seemingly like to justify violence and war... and then use our philosophies and religions to declare those acts as somehow just.

Note of clarification:

Mao, Stalin, King Leopold and many other world leaders throughout history (both religious and not) certainly called for murders. The vast majority of the deaths they caused, however, were not by specific intent to target and kill large numbers of people. The murders they personally directed were in far fewer numbers. The masses died due to stupid/idiotic political policies and decisions.

Pol Pot and Hitler stand out as two who had more direct and specific intent to murder.

Truman stands out as perpetrating the two largest single day killings in history.

0

Edited: May 19, 2019 @ 17:00

Leon

San Diego, California

#25

May 19, 2019 @ 17:51:50

@chaski Said

1. The use of the word "murder" is not accurate for Mao's China. Yes, the number appears to be accurate in terms of deaths. Yes the policies of Communist China lead to what amounts to a famine that caused the starvation deaths. However, "murder" was not the intent.

Note #1: Mao publicly stated on a number of occasions that he was not an atheist and believed in "god". He just didn't believe in the god of the Bible. In addition, these deaths were unrelated to war.

2. The use of the word "murder" while closer to being accurate in the case of Stalin's 23 million is also not accurate. Stalin did have many people murdered, but most of the 23 million were not really murder.

Note #2: Stalin was raised as a Christian and even went to seminary school. While allegedly an "atheist" his life was heavily impacted (even guided) by Christianity. Again, these deaths were unrelated to war (the number from WW2 being not included).

3. The actions of Hitler (& Nazi Germany) are the only of these three that can without dispute be described as murder.

Note #3: Hitler was also raised as a Christian, and was heavily influenced by Christianity... thus his hate of Jews.

4. While the actions of the USA, a Christian country, have resulted in far fewer deaths, they have typically been, usually, directly attributable to war.

Note #4: A Christian President or the USA is responsible for the two greatest (largest in number) acts resulting in deaths in the history of the world... war... though some would (wrongfully) prefer the word murder.

5. If I am not mistaken, King Leopold, Belgium, a Christian is ranked in the top three or four leaders of the world who were responsible for huge number of deaths... again, murder is probably not the correct word.

6. Pol Pot is also frequently listed in the top number and as an atheist... and yet again, he was raised a Christian/Buddhist.

So what is the point of bringing up the fact that some many of these murderous atheists were brought up Christian and the other leaders responsible for huge numbers of deaths were Christians?

> If we have the argument nature vs nurture it seems clear that on the nurture side Christianity is not innocent just because a leader decides in adulthood that he is an atheist. If we go with nature then being an atheist (or christian) has nothing to do with "it".

Final thought... for the moment... the OT, the Torah and the Quran each promote killing and war... I haven't Mao's Red Book lately, nor Marx's communist manifesto, but if memory serves they do justify violence to over throw the the corrupt ruling class... as does the USA's declaration of Independence...

We are a violent species that seemingly like to justify violence and war... and then use our philosophies and religions to declare those acts as somehow just.

Knowingly killed millions due to direct policy, as opposed to usual numbers of deaths, or even war (although the latter can certainly be added in this debate).

Some may call this murder, but fair enough. I was just trying to make the distinction, and if you can think of a better word, then by all means use that.

It doesn’t change my response. He used the Spanish Inquisition as relevant to his theory, which wasn’t war based either.

And even if we narrow down the deaths to direct persecution, I’m pretty sure these despots’ hands are far from washed as well.

As far as these despots being raised Christian, it is irrelevant in this debate as it clearly didn’t have anything to do with the enacted policies that arose from their rule, two of which were clearly anti-religion (Mao and Stalin).

I agree with your last statement, which is my whole point actually.

0

Edited: May 19, 2019 @ 17:52

Leon

San Diego, California

#26

May 19, 2019 @ 18:04:06

I also want to make it clear to the OP that I am against organized religion as well. But not because they cause evils so much as they have been used as a tool to excuse evil.

Which, in my opinion, is actually a better argument against organized religion. If religion truly was the cause of evils, then you simply cannot fault believers for committing such evils if that is what they truly believe God tells them to do, can you?

I am not an atheist, though, as the OP clearly is, because science simply hasn’t explained everything. I guess you could call me an agnostic more than anything. I will take science as it comes and do the best I can to continually learn the rest.

I just know a poor argument when I see one. The OP can do a much better job at debating religion than using this one, which he has in the past.

0

chaski

Stalker

Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,

#27

May 19, 2019 @ 18:35:17

@Leon Said

Knowingly killed millions due to direct policy, as opposed to usual numbers of deaths, or even war (although the latter can certainly be added in this debate).

Some may call this murder, but fair enough. I was just trying to make the distinction, and if you can think of a better word, then by all means use that.

I think we are mostly on the same proverbial page.

I do, however, believe that there is a huge difference between: What Hitler did (genocide of specific ethnic groups); what Pol Pot did (mass murder); and what Mao mostly did (institute policies that were reckless, misguided and resulted in the deaths of millions by starvation).

A better word...words?

> Hitler: Probably best described as genocide though murder and/or mass murder clearly apply.

> Pol Pot: Probably best described as murder and/or mass murder.

> Stalin, Mao, King Leopold (and others): Since they did a variety of things context would be important, but some murder, some mass murder, but mostly caused mass deaths by socio-political polices that resulted in famine induced deaths, maybe large scale manslaughter but looks a bit trite.

> Truman: Act of War or Wartime Collateral Damage (though some view his actions as murder, mass murder and/or war crimes).

0

Edited: May 19, 2019 @ 18:41

Leon

San Diego, California

#28

May 19, 2019 @ 18:47:16

@chaski Said

I think we are mostly on the same proverbial page.

I do, however, believe that there is a huge difference between: What Hitler did (genocide of specific ethnic groups); what Pol Pot did (mass murder); and what Mao mostly did (institute policies that were reckless, misguided and resulted in the deaths of millions by starvation).

A better word...words?

> Hitler: Probably best described as genocide though murder and/or mass murder clearly apply.

> Pol Pot: Probably best described as murder and/or mass murder.

> Stalin, Mao, King Leopold (and others): Since they did a variety of things context would be important, but some murder, some mass murder, but mostly caused mass deaths by socio-political polices that resulted in famine induced deaths, maybe large scale manslaughter but looks a bit trite.

> Truman: Act of War or Wartime Collateral Damage (though some view his actions as murder, mass murder and/or war crimes).

Sounds good. And I agree Hitler was mostly in a league of his own. His policy wasn’t based on theism or atheism, more than simple psychopathic insanity.

1

Edited: May 19, 2019 @ 18:49

GreatestIam2

Ottawa, Canada

#29

May 20, 2019 @ 11:14:13

@Leon Said

Which would only be relevant to your argument if exclusive to religion.

Apparently it isn’t. In fact, it seems to be the opposite. 78 million people were murdered under Mao’s China, 23 million under Joseph Stalin, and 17 million under Adolf Hitler, each far more than all other dictators combined.

Genocide is genocide regardless of the numbers murdered.

The fact is that we have been gifted with 5,000 years of almost constant war thanks to the religious who have been the vast majority forever.

If you want to just look at the last century, when religionists were/are still the vast majority, and see atheists as the main cause of wars, even though stats show that the least religious countries are the most peaceful and law abiding, go ahead.

You might remember though that Hitler's soldiers all had religious icons as a part of their uniforms and that the Vatican, always a fascist leaning entity, via their popes, were complicit in his vile work.

Regards
DL

0

Edited: May 20, 2019 @ 11:14

gakINGKONG

, Florida

#30

May 20, 2019 @ 11:39:34

@GreatestIam2 Said

Factors like the propensity of Christians to use inquisitions and Muslims to use jihad to grow their religions instead of good moral tents should tell us all we need to know.

Laïcité/secularism is a part of curbing those propensities towards violence against other tribes/religions.

Regards
DL

The good news is that comparing world religions for the sake of expansion won't have lasting effect.

It isn't enough for me to point out why my neighbor's lifestyle isn't trustworthy. I have to live in such a way that proves my lifestyle is better.

If there are gains in numbers within the Christian church using that "we're better than you" approach, those gains won't have eternal effect and likely the novelty will be worn off on those who try it.

That said, if the shoe fits you might as well wear it. People who have sex with goats better not live in a glass house and throw stones.

0

Edited: May 20, 2019 @ 11:40

Similar Topics
	Forum	Topic	Last Post	Replies	Views
	Religion & Philosophy	Will modern religions become future mythology?	Mon May 11, 2009 @ 21:25	22	1712
	Religion & Philosophy	Secularism	Fri Jul 06, 2007 @ 16:33	15	701
	Religion & Philosophy	Secularism and the Holidays	Thu Nov 30, 2006 @ 06:45	13	1387
	Politics	Cannibal: The guy agreed to it...GROSS!!!	Fri Jan 20, 2006 @ 13:25	8	657
	Religion & Philosophy	There are only two religions.	Mon Feb 01, 2010 @ 13:36	393	18273

Religion & Philosophy

Laïcité/secularism is the future of religions. Are you pro or con?